Tag: General Hydrocarbons

  • Our contractual relationship with FBN, by General Hydrocarbons

    Our contractual relationship with FBN, by General Hydrocarbons

    General Hydrocarbons, which is currently locked in litigation with First Bank over a financial deal, says it  will continue to fight for justice and damages while remaining “open for mediation and resolution.”

    The company,in an explainer yesterday on the deal described it as a “Project Finance relationship” as opposed to a “normal commercial loan”.

    It said it was FBN that approached it (GHL) ,  the awardee and licenced operator of OML 120, to “finance the exploration,development and production of OML 120 and share profit 50:50,while paying FBN cost of finance.”

    According to the company,”the FBN 50% share is dedicated to paydown its non-performing loan of $600million (discounted from$718million  from AMCON’s Eligible Bank Asset) in order to  resolve FBN’s solvency issues.”

    It said that in doing that GHL guaranteed FBN’s liability to AMCON, through a Tripartite Agreement between GHL,FBN and AMCON.”

    The result of the Tripartite Agreement,it said ,was  that the bank “became immediately profitable and moved from a loss of N302 billion to a profit of  N151billion  for 2021FYE.However,in return,it has failed  to meet its commitment uner the Tripartite Agreement to fully finance and make the payments required for the optimal exploration and development  of OML120 as agreed in the Tripartite Agreement,resulting  in losses in day rates and downtimes of $47million,which has now snowballed into the current impasse as FBN has failed to make further required payments for the drilling and exploration of OML 120.Essentially,FBN failed to fulfill its condition precedent to profitability in failing to finance OML 120 as agreed,leaving its financial statements open to challenge.Meanwhile the FBN’s claim of $225million loan is not due as it is still covered by moratorium,given that the project has not achieved  commercial production.So,at best FBN’s claim is premature.”

    Read Also: Dispute with General Hydrocarbons: we didn’t abuse court process, says FBN

    GHL said while it has  gone for Arbitration which is ongoing and FBN has gone to court with a series of Exparte Mareva measures, the first of which has been vacated and the case is now being heard on its merit, “the second temporary Mareva is pending at the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt,Rivers State,both supported by ‘wild,unfounded and unproven allegations of dissipation of assets.’”

    GHL denied dissipating any asset and said “all payments were made by First Bank DIRECTLY to 3rd parties after due diligence and verification by FBN,and the 3rd parties are mainly global,world class,reputable companies with strict compliance regimes.

    It said it is “filing a claim of over $1billion in various courts,while FBN is claiming $225billion debt which it never complied with in line with the agreements.”

  • Dispute with General Hydrocarbons: we didn’t abuse court process, says FBN

    Dispute with General Hydrocarbons: we didn’t abuse court process, says FBN

    First Bank of Nigeria Limited (FirstBank) yesterday dismissed the claim by General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) that it abused the court process.

    The bank, in a statement, said it was the only party that filed a substantive claim against GHL at the Federal High Court in Lagos.

    It clarified that its claims are not identical with the dispute GHL submitted to arbitration over which it sought preservative orders.

    FirstBank had obtained an order freezing GHL’s accounts over an alleged $225 million debt.

    But, the company faulted the Mareva injunction granted by Justice Deinde Dipeolu, which was based on an application by FirstBank and FBNQuest Trustees Limited.

    The court had restrained all banks in Nigeria from releasing funds to GHL owned by Nduka Obaigbena, Chairman of Arise and publisher of ThisDay Newspapers.

    Also frozen were the accounts of Obaigbena, Efe Damilola Obaigbena and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena, who are GHL directors.

    GHL, in a statement by its Director of Strategy & Operations, Abdelmuizz Bello on Sunday, accused FirstBank of obtaining the Mareva injunction from another judge “despite the existence of a subsisting court order” in its favour.

    Yesterday, FirstBank said GHL’s claim of process abuse was “incorrect”.

    The bank said: “As a responsible and law-abiding corporate citizen of Nigeria with the utmost respect for the courts, FirstBank will not be able to offer comments on issues which are pending for determination by the courts, as such issues are sub-judice.

    “However, we are constrained to issue the following clarifications to correct the sponsored but false narratives on the matter presented in some of the media publications.

    “There is a subsisting commercial transaction between FirstBank as lender, and GHL as borrower, where FirstBank extended several credit facilities to GHL for the development of some Oil Mining Lease assets.

    “There is a subsisting commercial transaction between FirstBank as lender, and GHL as borrower, where FirstBank extended several credit facilities to GHL for the development of some Oil Mining Lease assets.

    “These facilities are backed by very robust loan agreements executed by the parties in which the obligations of the parties are clearly defined and the security arrangement clearly spelt out.

    “While FirstBank has diligently performed its obligations under the loan agreements, at the root of the present dispute is FirstBank’s demand for good governance and transparency in the transaction, which GHL rejected.

    “Upon FirstBank’s realisation of breaches on the part of GHL including diversion of proceeds, FirstBank requested that an independent operator mutually acceptable to both parties be appointed in line with the terms of the agreement, to operate the financed asset in a transparent manner that will bring greater visibility to the project, protect the interest of, and bring value to all stakeholders.

    “Not only did GHL roundly reject this reasonable and fair request, rather GHL insisted that FirstBank avails it with more funding.

    “GHL refused to execute the terms of offer stipulated by the bank for the availment of additional funding but rather proceeded to commence needless Arbitral proceedings.

    “GHL issued a notice to initiate arbitration and has no substantive claim pending at the Federal High Court.

    Read Also: Court freezes General Hydrocarbons’ accounts over $225.8m debt to First Bank

    “GHL approached the Federal High Court solely to seek preservative orders pending arbitration.

    “Some of the preservative orders sought by GHL were granted while others were denied.

    “FirstBank is the only party that filed a substantive claim against GHL at the Federal High Court and the subject matter of FirstBank ‘s claim is not identical with the dispute GHL submitted to arbitration.

    “FirstBank’s claim is in respect of subsequent credit facilities granted to GHL and the offer letters and finance documents pertaining to the subsequent transactions clearly state that the disputes arising from the subsequent facilities are to be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction in Nigeria and not by arbitration.

    “Consequently, it is incorrect to assert that FirstBank abused the process of the court.”

    FirstBank accused GHL of breaching their agreement.

    The bank added: “GHL off-took crude from the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel and diverted the proceeds.

    “The bank had no choice as a secured lender, under these circumstances of continued breaches, non-payment of due obligations and attempts to shield the bank away from agreed security and repayment sources, than to approach the court for legal remedies, to preserve assets, recover the diverted proceeds, prevent reoccurrences and safeguard FirstBank’s interest.

    “It is clear to us that the courts do not support or protect illegalities and breaches of contracts.

    “FirstBank has a long and very rich history of supporting and providing for the financial needs of its customers over its more than 130 years of unbroken existence.

    “FirstBank remains committed to ensuring that it continues to support legitimate business aspirations of its teeming customers.

    “At the same time, FirstBank is committed to the building of a strong credit culture where borrowers pay their debts when they borrow and will always take appropriate steps, within the ambit of the law, to resist attempts by borrowers to repudiate their repayment obligations.

    “We wish to assure FirstBank’s numerous customers, stakeholders and the general public that FirstBank remains solid, calm, steadfast and unflinching in its resolve to continue to provide first-class services to its teeming customers within and outside the country.

    “FirstBank also wishes to respectfully thank our shareholders for the indicatively over subscribed Rights Issue of its parent company, First Holdco Plc (“FirstHoldco”), in the first round of its capital raise and looks forward to an equally successful final leg of the recapitalisation exercise when it is announced by FirstHoldco.”

  • We don’t owe First Bank $225 million, says General Hydrocarbons

    We don’t owe First Bank $225 million, says General Hydrocarbons

    General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) yesterday said it does not owe First Bank of Nigeria Limited $225 million.

    It faulted the Mareva injunction granted by Justice Deinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Lagos based on an application by First Bank and FBNQuest Trustees Limited.

    The court had restrained financial institutions in Nigeria from releasing funds to the company owned by Nduka Obaigbena, Chairman of Arise and publisher of ThisDay Newspapers.

    Also barred were the accounts of Efe Damilola Obaigbena and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena (first to fourth defendants), who are GHL directors.

    But, in a statement by its Director of Strategy and Operations, Abdelmuizz Bello, GHL accused First Bank of abuse of the court process.

    The company said it entered a legally binding, enforceable Subrogation Agreement with First Bank on May 29, 2021.

    GHL said the bank agreed to fund its exploration, production and development of OML 120 in exchange for sharing profit from oil proceeds from the OML in a 50:50 ratio after statutory payments and taxes over eight years.

    It said the FBN’s 50 per cent share will then be used to pay down its non-performing loans of about $718million, which was discounted to $600million to resolve its solvency issues.

    The statement reads: “In its quest to stay afloat, the FBN loan was sold at $600million as an Eligible Banking Asset (EBA), with comfort from GHL; the FBN then collected the cash from Assets Management Company of Nigeria (AMCON) with which they rebuilt the bank without meeting GHL’s needs.

    “The FBN non-performing loan arose from FBN’s unsecured and reckless lending to Atlantic Energy under separate Strategic Alliance arrangements, in which GHL had no nexus to or connection with.

    “The agreements made it clear that the Non-Performing Loan had nothing to do with GHL beyond the fact that 50 per cent of profits from OML 120 due to FBN under the Subrogation Agreement will be used by FBN  to settle the hole created in its books by the Non-Performing Loan (NPL).

    “For clarity, Atlantic Energy operated OMLs 26, 30, 34 and 42 – very different from GHL’s OML 120.

    “The agreements signed with GHL enabled the FBN to return to good standing as follows:

    “Instead of declaring a loan loss of N302Bn at the then exchange rate, the signing of the Tripartite Agreement with GHL enabled FBN to declare a profit of N151Bn ($377.5million) for the year ending December 31, 2021.

    “GHL signed the agreement trusting and believing that the FBN which it thought was a bank with integrity, would comply and continue to comply with its obligation to fund OML 120; FBN’s failure and refusal to do so has opened a challenge to its audited financial statement. Given its non-compliance with conditions precedent for its return to profitability, could those profits remain valid? And were investors in its current rights issues duly informed?

    Read Also: Court freezes General Hydrocarbons’ accounts over $225.8m debt to First Bank

    “FBN’s market capitalization before the agreement was N256.6bn. Had it declared a loss of N302Bn, the bank would have had a negative capital of N46Bn.

    “FBN then immediately realised profitability from the GHL’s subrogation agreement. GHL signed the agreement believing and trusting that the FBN as a bank with integrity would comply and continue to comply with its obligations to fund OML 120, but it has clearly not done so.

    “Following the agreements with GHL, FBN’s market capitalisation of N256.6Bn, more than tripled to over N900Bn as of 30th November 2024.”

    GHL said its grouse is essentially FBN’s failure to meet its agreed and executed financial commitments, which it had believed would be made when it signed the agreement.

    This, the company said, resulted in critical challenges for the development of OML 120.

    GHL added: “Although FBN had disbursed $185million, the way and manner of the disbursement which was agreed to be five days after funding request, sometimes lasted up to 70 days after funding request; service providers led by Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Century that were supposed to be paid at the same time for various interventions were paid sporadically at different times, resulting in massive losses in day rates and downtimes, leading to inefficiencies and losses of over $147 million, including an arbitration award to one of the service providers.

    “It is important to note that FBN’s credit and risk team verified and approved all contracts and invoices due to the contractors engaged for the development and operations of the oil mining lease and made payments directly to these contractors and service providers.

    “The allegations of a diversion of the monies advanced to GHL are therefore befuddling and without merit as payment were made by FBN directly to service providers after vetting and approval by its credit and risk teams.

    “At the end of the day, FBN became a conflicted lender, risk manager and operator at the same time when it got involved in vetting, approving and paying all invoices.

    “At the same time, FBN also approved and later appointed a CFO for GHL, taking full responsibility for all financial disbursements.

    “The oil block is over 75 kilometres offshore Nigeria, with a Floating Production Storage and Offloading (“FPSO”) that requires transportation and logistics support with over 250 personnel on the FPSO and the associated submersible rig.

    “This has involved heavy logistics planning with over 500 helicopter sorties, engagement of platform supply vessels, security vessels, mooring vessels, etc., which were provided daily over the course of the last 40 months.

    “All these expenditures, including food, were vetted, approved and paid directly by FBN’s credit and risk teams.

    “In view of the approval process for the funds put in place by FBN, and the payment made directly to contractors and service providers, the allegation of diversion contained in some publications is therefore wicked, malicious, false, injurious and libellous.

    “The disbursed loan of $185million is not due for repayment. The loan is still within the moratorium period as per the Facility and Tripartite Agreements.

    “The loan is only due when there are profits to be shared 50:50 from commercial oil production.

    “Clearly, there is a need for much more money which FBN has refused to provide.

    “Instead of performing its role as a lender who was saved from the abyss, FBN is trying to bully and force GHL out of the transaction and take over the oil bloc, using its directors and other proxies with this clearly induced crisis.

    “It is also instructive to note that First Bank has made no demand for repayment of the facilities until after the fact a few days after they lost in court, as they know that the loan is not due for repayment.

    “Clearly, FBN is either illiquid, unable or unwilling to fund the project as agreed after they had made profits upfront.”

    GHL said it seeks to exercise its options under the agreement to find new lenders and partners that can be efficient and cost-effective to save the project for Nigeria “should FBN remain intransigent”.

    It added that the Subrogation Agreement contains a clause that allows GHL to seek for alternative financing in the likelihood FBN is unable to provide such financing.

    The company continued: “Following FBN’s non-performance under the terms of the Subrogation Agreement, GHL was left with no option but to approach the Court to seek injunctive reliefs and protective orders to secure its commercial and economic interests and find resolution via arbitration.

    “GHL approached the Federal High Court and after arguments by both sides, obtained the following injunctions against First Bank on December 12, 2024:

    “‘An Order restraining FBN from obstructing or preventing GHL from obtaining or securing loan facilities or funding necessary for the exploration or operation of OML 120.

    “‘An Order restraining FBN from making any calls or demands, or taking any steps whatsoever to enforce any security, receivables, instrument, finance documents or assets of GHL which have been charged as Security.

    “‘An Order restraining FBN from appointing an operator, asset manager or any person/institution of the same/similar ilk in respect of OML 120, pending the hearing and determination of the arbitration proceedings between GHL and FBN’.

    “Despite the existence of a subsisting court order, FBN, using the same lawyers who lost at the Federal High Court presided by Justice Allagoa, went to another judge of coordinate status, during recess without disclosing the earlier judgment, to obtain an interim Mareva injunction restraining GHL and its shareholders from operating their accounts over a purported and unfounded debt of $225.8million.

    “The FBN had since weaponised the Mareva injunction which it obtained on December 30, 2024, to confuse the public and befuddle the issues. A clear abuse of the Court Process.

    “This impunity is now back before the Federal High Court, Lagos. We believe that sooner or later Justice will be served.”

  • Court freezes General Hydrocarbons’ accounts over $225.8m debt to First Bank

    Court freezes General Hydrocarbons’ accounts over $225.8m debt to First Bank

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has frozen the accounts of General Hydrocarbons Limited in all financial institutions in Nigeria.

    It restrained the banks from releasing funds to the company owned by Mr  Nduka Obaigbena, the Chairman of Arise and publisher of ThisDay Newspapers.

    Justice Deinde Dipeolu granted the Mareva order based on an application by First Bank of Nigeria Limited and FBNQuest Trustees Limited.

    It is over alleged outstanding indebtedness amounting to $225,802,379.69 (about N350billion).

    A Mareva injunction (often called a “freezing order”) is an order which bars a defendant from moving any assets they own or control, wherever and in whoever’s name they may be, to safeguard a plaintiff’s clear and apparent legal claims.

    Aside from General Hydrocarbons and Obaigbena, the other defendants are Efe Damilola Obaigbena and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena (first to fourth defendants), who are the directors.

    The others are GHL 121 Ltd, Aimonte Nigeria Limited, Calidin Global Resources Limited, CESL Oyo Production BBS Limited (owner of FPSO Tamara Tokoni) and CESL Oyo Production O & M Limited.

    The rest are Vitol SA, Mercuria Energy Trading SA, Trafigura PTE Limited, Glencore Energy UK Limited, Schlumberger Nigeria Limited, Schlumberger Overseas SA and Baker Hughes Oilfield Services.

    The restrained financial institutions are Guaranty Trust Bank Limited, Access Bank Plc, Citibank Nigeria Limited, Carbon Microfinance Bank, Ecobank Nigeria Plc and Fidelity Bank Plc.

    Others are First Bank of Nigeria Limited, First City Monument Bank Plc, Flutter Wave, Globus Bank, Heritage Bank Limited, Jaiz Bank Plc, Keystone Bank Limited and Opay Digital Services Limited.

    The rest are Palmpay Limited, Paystack Payments Limited, Piggyvest, Momo Payment Service Bank Limited, Polaris Bank Limited, Providus Bank Plc, Stanbic Ibtc Bank Nigeria Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Plc, Sterling Bank Plc, Suntrust Bank Limited, Union Bank Of Nigeria Plc, United Bank For Africa Plc, Unity Bank Plc, Wema Bank Plc and Zenith Bank Plc.

    Justice Dipeolu granted an order of Mareva injunction restraining all the commercial banks and fintech companies “from releasing, or dealing in any manner whatsoever with any and all monies and/or whatsoever assets due to the first defendant (General Hydrocarbons) from any account maintained by the first defendant, their agents, privies, subsidiaries, and/or sister companies with any of the said banks wherever situate, up to the amount of the plaintiffs/applicants’ total claim in the sum of US$225,802,379.69 being the outstanding indebtedness on the first defendant’s account with the first plaintiff/applicant as of 30th September 2024 in respect of the loan facilities granted to the first defendant by the first plaintiff/applicant pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction”.

    The court barred all the banks “from releasing or dealing in any manner whatsoever with any and all monies and/or whatsoever assets due to the second to fourth defendants from any account whatsoever maintained by the second to fourth defendants and also all accounts associated with BVN: 22220558365 (second defendant), 22363940584 (third defendant) and 22363940584 (fourth defendant), with any of the said banks wherever situate up to the amount of the plaintiffs/applicants’ total claim in the sum of US$225,802,379.69 being the indebtedness on the first defendant’s account with the plaintiffs/applicants as at 30th September 2024, in respect of the loan facilities granted to the first defendant by the first plaintiff/applicant (First Bank) pending the hearing and determination of Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction”.

    Justice Dipeolu granted an order of interim injunction restraining the first to fourth defendants, their agents, servants, officers, privies, subsidiaries, sister companies or any other person natural or artificial “from transferring or otherwise dealing with any and all of the monies standing to the credit of the first to fourth  defendants in any account whatsoever maintained by the first to fourth defendants with any of the aforementioned banks wherever situate up to the amount of the plaintiff/applicant’s claim of the total sum of US$225,802,379.69…”

    The judge ordered all the banks to file and serve on the plaintiffs/applicants’ solicitors within seven days an affidavit disclosing the sum standing to the first to fourth defendants’ credit.

    Read Also: Arms scandal and NPAN’s moral predicament

    The affidavit is to be accompanied by a duly certified statement of accounts of the first to fourth defendants/respondents in their respective custody from the date of the account opening till the date the order is served on the banks.

    The court ordered the eight to 13th defendants to file and serve on the plaintiffs/applicants a statement disclosing the quantum of products lifted from the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Tamara Tokoni or OML (oil mining lease) 120 since the commencement of production in OML 120.

    The court granted an order of interim injunction restraining them and any other third parties from dealing with any assets and receivables related or connected with OML 120 without depositing the proceeds to General Hydrocarbons’ account in First Bank, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction.

    Justice Dipeolu further restrained the first to fourth defendants whether by themselves, members, shareholders, agents, servants, proxies, or allies from transferring and/or dissipating, diminishing or dealing with any interest in the first defendant’s assets.

    These include but are not limited to crude stock, insurance policies, all forms of stock of shares, all forms of receivables and contracts which have been pledged as securities for the loan facilities granted by First Bank to General Hydrocarbons, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction.

    The court barred the second to fourth defendants, being directors of General Hydrocarbons, whether by themselves, agents, servants, proxies, or allies from transferring and/or dissipating any interest in their assets wherever located in Nigeria, movable or immovable, pending the determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction.

    Justice Dipeolu made the ex-parte order on December 30 based on a motion moved by Victor Ogude (SAN), counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants.

    A copy of the order was obtained by our reporter yesterday.

    The court also granted the plaintiffs leave to issue the originating summons in the suit for service outside Nigeria in respect of the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 15th defendants, who are to be served through DHL.

    They are to enter appearance within 30 days of being served with the originating processes.

    General Hydrocarbons had acquired oil blocks OML 120/121, hitherto owned by Atlantic Energy.

    Thereafter,  it entered into an agreement with First Bank to finance the operation of OML 120 while OML 121 is pledged as collateral to the bank.

    The lender/ borrower relationship saw First Bank lending to General Hydrocarbons sums of money which the bank has now put at over $225 million, which it is asking the oil firm to pay.

    Justice Dipeolu adjourned until January 20 for a hearing of the motion on notice.